[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Regressed XSA-286, was [xen-unstable test] 161917: regressions - FAIL
- To: osstest service owner <osstest-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 21:15:10 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eNUPB6RNTND5hqCgZhFxtEHC3q+VgGfoK6l471YuAi8=; b=QYtM9BKN+GrSSnlsbzcvbBUmGDBEAozvqMYH8eZ2AxCpkf4Ox5REGx5l71iKPhUtaUeIzPI0jkE8wXLOxf5hZTJ2bpNbUlPs3TGSg6maQgQljABvrPULcNBnmLLonlhKP5H4809PdUJvPGqDJ+SuzVCuRRmL5OtljjKlA4KTymx4j1YvLLG2Fo01GEdoPYFDFMoWw2QkXPiYOnGWVWt7KVqD0NsiL3sliWOfSfBjWv/QH1ftRcKljLjsiiSmWAkpayjg1tPrNxVD8hSig+uBcTUKwOFRthNsxQZIRmJYH9vR/8Y7OtfeAvhjzYUzJ7PZ+NWKZWcAm4uRwVXZbqUj4w==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=j8TQTEr02zgV4aGE6+AGOYEPzSOpj6ud/i2Qmf3zi+kuDU5rNJLT7iyw33GcHuDj61Uus3ZAkUruEQstBEFBQONCNWebsZa9tri6tQNCYg0azG8BlIyJuYzgGAx3MIkocDPskT63kS6YirbVTKk96vuT9JrYf0nHGYUJcu8QlB/HtycdSMVIuwJoy+asZDI26nbgX/lm0eyrxxM1ZPiCc+RrMZ1nLDGYZ9b5fo7E+6a6kWvYqaNe7+fJU7oq5WCFQv5G+1lBagyWi7d0zTccTY0Afu+EO28NMEm/QreLoCubrLqsOfiVojXfq0DV58fY0HVnFh7xYOEnQ1NRH6D3zA==
- Authentication-results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=pass (signature verified) header.i=@citrix.onmicrosoft.com
- Delivery-date: Thu, 13 May 2021 20:15:44 +0000
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:fx/BIK9LU4xYzXrvXlFuk+Hidr1zdoMgy1knxilNoENuEvBwxv rOoB1E73HJYW4qKTgdcBW7SeS9qADnhNZICOgqTO+ftWzd1RrKEGgM1/qW/9SRIUfDH4JmpN ldmu1FeavN5DtB/J3HCWuDYqIdKbC8mcjC6YiurQYJPGcaEtAdnnhE5x6gYypLrUt9dO0E/f Gnl7p6Tk+bCAYqh7OAdwo4tob41qz2fabdEEM7Li9ixBiFiDup7LLgMh6DwxsSaTNAxr8+7X PIiUjc6r+4u/+28wTb3WPI9Zha8eGRsudrNYihm8IRIjXphh2JYJ17W7qelDopoOepgWxa7e XkklMNLs5343PUcnqUpQL32w789T4y53jp2Taj8AHeiP28aCMxDsJAgY5DSwDe+loEtMxx16 hatljpzKa/QCmwzBgUKLDzJlZXfh7fmwtHrccjy1hkFacOYr5YqoISuGlPFo0bIS784Ic7VM FzEcD1/p9tAHqnRkGcmlMq7M2nX3w1EBvDaFMFoNap3z9fm20851cExfYYgmwL+PsGOs95Dt z/Q4xVfYx1P5srhONGdbI8qPKMez7wqMf3QTWvyVeOLtBEB5uCke+skZ4IDCfDQu1V8HJ4ou WLbLpijx99R6o1Yff+g6Gjuiq9CllVfQ6dlP22tKIJ64EVstLQQGm+oG5Hqbrhnx3paverHs pbfqgmUMMKZQbVaKh0N0aSYeh8FZFWPfdllurSET+10+P2wvWGjJ33TN/jYInMIBcDYF7SLz 8oYALPAuFt1SmQK1XFaRPqKjXQk2nEjMtN+ZnhjqsuIdI2R8JxWyAu+BWED++wWHF/jpA=
- Ironport-sdr: pzzQJlzjlKNG8S5e9BF32grl1vO3cxa/jaH9CjPqf5NXxe/Wui6+v3VBQ0lRwIoyIkvnyVYZfy 9Ci2GvxKYRNQ4Kj4ij9wIwLwPdG/mx/P0U80ZDCX5uDjokddpxYq2OyjX4oCchznjfHoV+wOAQ qKuWJhgUjavDOcDfDoKX34BbGiVBsc5roS9JD/5Hz+VPF7TOMhk0mv4gVXRv2QuoHu5EipFu0G OauGBUvfDaxD4bEMtQluMVafNvyKHNOjuf3hzO42JXCT5VtNQzoTRBUSk8IpRMc4genok23VGq j/s=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 13/05/2021 04:56, osstest service owner wrote:
> flight 161917 xen-unstable real [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/161917/
>
> Regressions :-(
>
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
> test-arm64-arm64-examine 8 reboot fail REGR. vs.
> 161898
> test-arm64-arm64-xl-thunderx 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs.
> 161898
> test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit1 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs.
> 161898
> test-arm64-arm64-xl-credit2 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs.
> 161898
> test-arm64-arm64-xl 8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs.
> 161898
I reported these on IRC, and Julien/Stefano have already committed a fix.
> Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
> test-xtf-amd64-amd64-3 92 xtf/test-pv32pae-xsa-286 fail in 161909 pass in
> 161917
While noticing the ARM issue above, I also spotted this one by chance.
There are two issues.
First, I have reverted bed7e6cad30 and edcfce55917. The XTF test is
correct, and they really do reintroduce XSA-286. It is a miracle of
timing that we don't need an XSA/CVE against Xen 4.15.
Given that I was unhappy with the changes in the first place, I don't
particularly want to see an attempt to resurrect them. I did not find
the claim that they were a perf improvement in the first place very
convincing, and the XTF test demonstrates that the reasoning about their
safety was incorrect.
Second, the unexplained OSSTest behaviour.
When I repro'd this on pinot1, test-pv32pae-xsa-286 failing was totally
deterministic and repeatable (I tried 100 times because the test is a
fraction of a second).
>From the log trawling which Ian already did, the first recorded failure
was flight 160912 on April 11th. All failures (12, but this number is a
few flights old now) were on pinot*.
What would be interesting to see is whether there have been any passes
on pinot since 160912.
I can't see any reason why the test would be reliable for me, but
unreliable for OSSTest, so I'm wondering whether it is actually
reliable, and something is wrong with the stickiness heuristic.
~Andrew
|
